has awakening happened (or not)

[franksinatra]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
There is only life happening and the idea of self is exactly that, an idea, or a thought or a perception by the mind.
What are you looking for at LU? "I" am wondering whether of not awaking has already happend. There is this strong feeling of consciousness/awareness/life flowing though 'me' and I know that there is no 'me' but there is wondering going on if that is only known conceptually or that it's really grounded. 'I' notice that formulating text without using the words I and me and using the ' and '' makes it a bit complex and even impossible to function around 'regular'people so my question is also how to deal with that.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
An answer to the questions above and some usefull pointers in the right direction that can help me along. (And liberation, world peace, happily ever after and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of course ;)

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I have done a lot in the past 10 years or more. Meditation, healing, light and energy work, etc. And I started reading Jed Mckenna in 2008 and then a seed was planted. This year things are speeding up and after quitting alcohol and meat for some reason I keep feeling lighter and lighter and more and more flowing..

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 10

[Matthew]

Hi Frank!


Let us have a look at what's going on there.

I have done a lot in the past 10 years or more. Meditation, healing, light and energy work, etc. And I started reading Jed Mckenna in 2008 and then a seed was planted.

That is all nice and good. But can you stop engaging in these kinds of activity for the meantime and just focus on our inquiry here? You don't need practices and books anymore.
Only trust in your very own experience and insight.
There is no one and no thing, which could teach you anything that you do not know already.
Can you do that?


If so, let's get started:

"I" am wondering whether of not awaking has already happend

Is there a one or a thing, which could either be awake or not awake?
What would that be?
"I", "me"?
Can a word be awake or not awake?


With kind regards
Matthew

[franksinatra]

Thanks, Matthew!

That is all nice and good. But can you stop engaging in these kinds of activity for the meantime and just focus on our inquiry here? You don't need practices and books anymore.
Only trust in your very own experience and insight.
There is no one and no thing, which could teach you anything that you do not know already.
Can you do that?

I've already stopped doing all that shit. I did read Gateless Gatecrashers and Brutal Beginnings yesterday. I am assuming that's ok. But I will stop reading that for now as well.

If so, let's get started:
"I" am wondering whether of not awaking has already happend
Is there a one or a thing, which could either be awake or not awake?
What would that be?
"I", "me"?
Can a word be awake or not awake?

a word can not be awake and neither can a thought. a word is a word and a thougt is a thougt. and a thought of me being awake is just a thougt of me being awake but there is no me that is thinking the thought whether i am awake. and no I that can be awake. same as there is no I that can be asleep.

so, no there is not a one thing that can be awake or not. awakening is something that can be happening or has happened. or that doens't happen. or hasn't happened. same as walking of thinking or raining.

[Matthew]

How is this seen/felt today:

Was there a someone on a path?
Was there a path?

Is there an actual Gate to crash?
Is there a one, which would crash that gate?

Or was ALL of that just a very entertaining thought story?

[franksinatra]

How is this seen/felt today:

Was there a someone on a path?

There never was someone on a path. Although for a very long time in this life there was a thought of I and that seemed real. BUt if there is no I now then there can never have been an I. It was a construct of the mind.

Was there a path?

Maybe there was/is a path. But then the path was/is layed out by life (or energy or whatever) and not by me because there is no me. It's just life happening of life laying out a path.

Is there an actual Gate to crash?

If you call the seeing that there is nog I, if you call that a gate than maybe, yeah. But nog actual gate of course. Maybe the gate is the moment that divides time between 'believing in I' and seeing that there is no I.

Is there a one, which would crash that gate?

No there is no one to crash that gate. There is no I or me of someone to crash anything. Or to do anything. Or to be anything.

Or was ALL of that just a very entertaining thought story?

It's easy now to say yes, that is what is was. But for some reason it feels like this entertaining thought story about a gateless gate also has had a real purpose. The purpose of leeding to the reaslisation that there is no I. So in that sense it 'feels' a bit stronger that just a very entertaining thought story.

[Matthew]

'I' notice that formulating text without using the words I and me and using the ' and '' makes it a bit complex and even impossible to function around 'regular'people so my question is also how to deal with that.

"Happiness is present here now"
"Needing that is happening here now"

Yeah, these are clunky ways of communication :-)


Is there a problem in saying "I want that" or "This is my car" or "I don't like that"?

If you say "I need that"
Do you still believe in it?

Or can't you just say this lightly with a little smile on the inside.

[franksinatra]

"Happiness is present here now"
"Needing that is happening here now"

Yeah, these are clunky ways of communication :-)


Is there a problem in saying "I want that" or "This is my car" or "I don't like that"?

If you say "I need that"
Do you still believe in it?

Or can't you just say this lightly with a little smile on the inside.

Yeah I know what you mean. But maybe I'm a bit afraid that if I keep using the words I and me that I fall back into beleiving that there is an I. So if I would use language that doensn't include those words it would be more sustainable to know there is no I. Maybe just in the beginning.

Or maybe the new paradigm that there is no I just hasnt' sunk in yet...

[Matthew]

Maybe the gate is the moment that divides time between 'believing in I' and seeing that there is no I.

Can there really be a belief in the existence of a self?

Or are "Now there is a belief in a self" and "Now there is no belief in a self" just two chapters of the same story?

maybe I'm a bit afraid that if I keep using the words I and me that I fall back into beleiving that there is an I

What would fall back?
What would believe in an "I"?

[franksinatra]

Can there really be a belief in the existence of a self?

Or are "Now there is a belief in a self" and "Now there is no belief in a self" just two chapters of the same story?

Aha. A belief in the existence of self is also just a thought. a believe is a thought. maybe a thought that keeps returning but still a thought. So now there is a belief in self is a thought and Now there is no belief in self is also a thought. So yeah just two thought or two chapters of a story.

maybe I'm a bit afraid that if I keep using the words I and me that I fall back into beleiving that there is an I
What would fall back?
What would believe in an "I"?

aha yeah. there is no one to fall back so there is no I to fall back in thinking there is an I. There is just thought happening. Lots of thought about I and thought about beleiving and thought about awakening. THose are all just thought, along with thought about hunger and tired and happy.

[Matthew]

Is "I" more than a letter?
Is "me" more than a word?
Is "self" more than a thought?

Can a letter believe something?
Can a word not believe?


Can a thought realise something?


Is there anything or anyone, which would need to understand or realise anything?

[franksinatra]

Is "I" more than a letter?
Is "me" more than a word?
Is "self" more than a thought?

I / me / self are letters, words and thought. But also concepts used in this world to communicate with eachother about stuff. So in that sense there is a meaning in these words, helping to make things clear. But basically it's just thoughts thought by the mind.

Can a letter believe something?
Can a word not believe?

Letters and word cannot beleave anything. So there can only beleaving happening and a believe is a thougth so only thinking is happening and there is no one to think or believe anything.

Can a thought realise something?

No a thought is a thought. A thought cannot think. So a thought cannot realise something.

Is there anything or anyone, which would need to understand or realise anything?

This is a tricky one. Because I know there is no self and no I. But what about understanding for example how this forum works. THere has to be understanding about the rules and the practical use of this forum. And the understanding has to be with the franksinatra character. So in that sense there can be the need to understand something. But there is no I that understands. There is just understanding or no understanding.
Hmmm i have a feeling i am almost there but maybe i keep intellectualising to much.

[Matthew]

Hmmm i have a feeling i am almost there but maybe i keep intellectualising to much.

Drop the intellect :D
It has served well. Now it is allowed to rest.

And the understanding has to be with the franksinatra character

Is it "franksinatra" who is understanding?

Is an "I" needed for seeing to happen?
Is there an "I" doing the seeing right now? Or is there just seeing?

In the same way:
Is there a someone needed for understanding to happen?
Is it "I" which is doing the understanding?
Is it "franksinatra" which is doing the understanding?
Or is there just understanding.

But basically it's just thoughts thought by the mind.

What is "mind"?
How is it known, that there is a "mind" which is thinking the thoughts?
How does this look like?

[franksinatra]

Is it "franksinatra" who is understanding?

Is an "I" needed for seeing to happen?
Is there an "I" doing the seeing right now? Or is there just seeing?

In the same way:
Is there a someone needed for understanding to happen?
Is it "I" which is doing the understanding?
Is it "franksinatra" which is doing the understanding?
Or is there just understanding.

ah yeah. understanding just happens. It is not connected to a person or character or I. There is just understanding, there doesnt have to be someone or something that understands. There actually is noone or nothing that understands. Understanding just happens.
There is no franksinatra. There is no I. There is no you. There is no Donald Trump. There is just isness. Life. Happenings.

What is "mind"?
How is it known, that there is a "mind" which is thinking the thoughts?
How does this look like?

Aha yeah. MInd is also just a concept. A thought. There is a body. And a brain. Which is a part of the body. And there are thoughts happening. Maybe in the brain or maybe through the brain or maybe outside the brain. It doesn't matter. There are just thought. andd the concept of mind is also a thought. And the concept of concept is also just a thought. Even the concept of thought is just a thougt. There are just thoughts. And life is happening. And flowing. And thoughts are happening and flowing. And more thoughts. And sometimes no thoughts. And then there are thoughts again. There is no mind. There is no I. There is no self. There is no me. There is just things. Stuff. Whatever.

[Matthew]

There is no Donald Trump

The thought characters are given names.
Labels for an expression within This.
But the characters are completely made up. Everywhere.
And there is no one doing the making up.
There is just THE MOVIE. Just This.
Do you see that?

Maybe in the brain or maybe through the brain or maybe outside the brain

How is it known, that there is a "brain" in actual experience?
A "brain" that even DOES things?
Is there evidence in direct experience, that "brain" has anything to with this here? Or is that just an idea.

[franksinatra]

The thought characters are given names.
Labels for an expression within This.
But the characters are completely made up. Everywhere.
And there is no one doing the making up.
There is just THE MOVIE. Just This.
Do you see that?

There is just life. Or the movie as you call it. Yes. and there are no real characters. Just experiences. And in 'my' expercience there are other characters and there is my character. And they seem to interact. But actually this is just life happening. There is no real I, there is no real you, there is no real him. We just are. Or actually there is no we. There is just experience/life/the movie/consciousness

How is it known, that there is a "brain" in actual experience?
A "brain" that even DOES things?
Is there evidence in direct experience, that "brain" has anything to with this here? Or is that just an idea.

It doesn't really matter. I could say I don't know that there is a brain or I could say that studies and scans show there is a brain and thoughts can be shown on scans of the brain. And there probably is an organ in the body that is called a brain. But it truly doesn't matter where thought come from or where they go of even if the come from anything. They just happen. Thoughts just are. Everything just is.